The following is a summary of what has emanated from Yahya al-Hajuri al-Haddadi towards the Companions (radiyallaahu anhum):

1. His revilement upon Qudaamah bin Madh'oon (radiyallaahu anhu), accusing him of being "the first to speak with al-Irjaa", and he also claimed that the appearance of Irjaa began during the time of the Companions (radiyallaahu anhum), in the time of Umar bin al-Khattaab (radiyallaahu anhu). These statements of al-Hajuri comprise a clear revilement of that Companion and also upon the era of Umar bin al-Khattaab, which was an era of blessing and goodness and no one was bold towards bid'ah in his time. Then when al-Hajuri was asked about his speech he attempted to throw his filth onto Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) who is free and innocent of the statements of al-Hajuri.

2. His revilement upon Abu Dharr (radiyallaahu anhu), accusing him of "remonstrating" (finding fault, i'tiraad) against the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) numerous times, when the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said about the one who dies upon Tawhid (not having committed shirk) that he will enter Paradise and Abu Dharr said, "Even if he fornicates and steals" and he said this a few times. So al-Hajuri claimed that Abu Dharr was remonstrating (finding fault and objecting), when in reality, Abu Dharr was simply asking a question "Even if he fornicates and steals?" This was a question of being surprised and not one of an objection. It is not correct to speak of Abu Dharr in this way.

3. His revilement upon Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhum) accusing him of instituting a bid'ah in the religion and making opposition (mukhaalafah) to the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). when he instituted the first adhaan for Jumu'ah. Then he fell into many lies and fabrications whereby he claimed a false ijmaa' on this issue and he clipped the words of the Scholars in order to find ways to defend himself. And his staunch followers then mobilized themselves to come to the defence of al-Hajuri, being pleased that Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu) should be reviled with this false accusation.

4. His revilement upon all of the Companions present during Uthmaan's institution of the first adhaan for Jumu'ah, in that they approved of this bid'ah, dalaalah and mukhaalafah and not a single one of them spoke against it.

5. His revilement upon the Companions, claiming that they forsook Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu), where he claimed "Verily, Uthmaan, desertion (khadeelah) of him took place [by the Companions]". When in reality, Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu) himself prevented the Companions from fighting in the most severe of ways, and there are many evidences for that.

6. His claim that some of the Companions participated in the murder of Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu). Then when he was pulled up on his, he began to tell lies again and tried to throw his filth on other Scholars of the past. No legislatively acceptable tawbah appeared from him in this regard, and he followed the same path as al-Ma'ribee in wriggling and wrangling when the latter described the Companions as "ghuthaa'iyyah" (scum) and then went through a number of different phases and stages which collectively proved he was playing and fooling around. None of the Companions participated in the murder of Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu) and they are innocent of al-Hajuri's accusation.

7. He accused the Mujaahideen participating in the battle of Badr of having disobeyed Allaah twice and been punished twice and he misinterpreted the verse in (3:165) with this false explanation of his. Rather, Allaah the Exalted was consoling the Believers in this verse, stating that if you suffered a calamity (loss of 70 as martyrs in Uhud), then you have inflicted twice that upon them (killing 70 and taking 70 as captive). Whereas al-Hajuri claimed that they disobeyed Allaah twice and punished twice.

8. His practice of making a long list of all of the mistakes of the Companions (radiyallaahu anhum) in one place with a view to undermining the position that the statement of a Companion is a proof (hujjah), and this is not from the way of the Salaf, and if one of the scholars did this (like Ibn Hazm) then it is a mistake that is not permissible to be followed.

9. His restriction of the takfeer of the reviler of the Companions through the requirement that the one reviling must intend (qasd) rejection of the religion or revilement of it. That which is correct is the reviler of all or most of the Companions is a disbeliever, without looking at his intent (qasd) of rejecting the religion or not.

10. He made tahqeeq of a book, Islaah al-Mujtama', in which is severe revilement of Al-Aqra' bin Haabis (radiyallaahu anhu), and he did not show rejection against that revilement, and then when another writer stood to defend the original author who made a remark, al-Hajuri affirmed this defence in which it is claimed that the revilement is not really a revilement. Al-Bayhaanee (the reviler) stated, "Al-Aqra' bin Haabis was a man harsh (merciless) by nature, hard hearted."

11. The same author as above (al-Bayhaanee) reviled the Companions in the same book in another place wherein he described some of the Sahaabah as "Sufahaa" (fools) "Hudathaa ul-Asnaan" (young, immature), that they worship material things, and do not venerate except their own beneficial interests, pleased if they are given, angry if they are withheld from. Al-Hajuri did not comment on this despite making takhreej of the hadeeth that al-Bayhaanee mentioned in the course of the revilement.

May Allaah protect our tongues from such speech about Companions (radiyallaahu anhum).

Refer to al-Intisaar Li Ahl al-Sunnah bi Radd Makaa'id Ahl al-Ghuluww wal-Fitnah, Radd alaa Yahya al-Hajuri wal-Hajaawirah (pp. 53-65), compiled by Usamah al-Utaybee.

It is not established from al-Hajuri that he has made a legislatively acceptable tawbah (repentance, recantation) from the above. However, his followers have exerted the greatest of efforts to try and defend the honour and standing of al-Hajuri, more than what has been observed from them of defending the honour of Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu) against being accused of instituting an umm ul-bid'ah and making mukhaalafah of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and likewise, the Companions, against the revilements made against them. This is why some of the Scholars like Shaykh Rabee' have described their ghuluww (in al-Hajuri) as one "having no equal."